Your exageration does nothing to show your original point was right. As it stands, as out there as that explanation is, it seems to me to be the only one that would support the evidence. Could it be the SIF? Maybe. Could it be bubble shields they set to hug the hull in an emergency? Maybe. I have no idea what it is, and thus am proposing theories. Notice that this is completely opposite of your tactic of looking at something and jumping to a conclusion that you must then scramble to support.The Silence and I wrote:EDIT: After reading Ender's posts during my writing of this, I felt this needed clarification:Ender wrote:Also note the visable blue tint on the edge of the flames, which is consistent with what we saw in Nemesis for their shields.
So that says nothing about their thermal conductivity.
1) Except the shields are not hull conforming Ender. You are proposing that the saucer section has the more advanced hull conforming shields, but the battle hull, and the combined vessel, does not?
It is also dealing with much less intense energy then other shuield responses.2) That blue tint, which is fainter than any shield glow,
Ok, I will repeat this again for the 3rd time. It cannot be the atmosphere heating because the color is off. Blue is hotter then red or orange, and if it was the friction superheating the atmosphere it should be before the red orange, not after.could easily have everything to do with the temperature of the atmosphere.
I now expect this to go completely over your pointly little head as you cling to your failed conclusion that it is thermal conductivity and that is superheated atmosphere.
So the fact that the saucer only shields I am suggesting as a possible theory did not cover the main body engines is somehow a major hole to you. Pull your head out of your ass and think for once, ok?3) Those shields would have been extremely handy when the battle hull blew sky high. You do remember why they crashed, right? The shockwave disabled their engines, they fell into the atmosphere, and Data only achieved thruster control a few hundred meters above the surface. I highly doubt the shields were operational, to say nothing of points 1 and 2.
Search SB. Ended up being weaker then high grade steel (I think it was K-monel, a nickel iron alloy. But high grade steel was the statement)Weaker than steel?
The placement of the narcell makes it a stresspoint, meaning it needs to be stronger. It is agreed to be less tough, not less strong. If you are going to talk materials science, get the terminology right.1) The nacelle assembly is widely recognized to be the weakest area of any starship, and is not representative of the Saucer's hull integrity.
So you pick and choose your evidence. You just love reconfirming my opinion of you rather then changing your methods, don't you?2) Generations had a significantly larger budget than Cause and Effect, I find I trust that to be a better source of information; however, this is hard to defend, so see point three:
Screen caps and measurements please.3) The Bozeman is ~240m long, and travelled somewhat more than its length in one second.
Source?It also masses some 2.4 e8 kg.
and lets just totally ignore the fact that hte Enterprise was backing up meaning the relative velocity and thus momentum would be lower, shall we?Therefore it had some 5.8e10 kg*m/s to its name.
Correct, though additional hull information could be brought out from comparing its failuer to the internal pressure.Now, the impact was glancing, but some change in speed occured, simply because there was an impact. How much change in speed? Well it takes about one second for the Bozeman to cover the last 100 m of the Ent-D's nacelle, so perhaps as much as a 100 m/s difference.
What was the impact area? Hard to say, the leading edge of the Bozeman's nacelle struck, that edge is about 10 meters wide, though the corner of it actually struck. But the two nacelles slid over each other for about one hundred meters. At most that's 1000 m^2.
So, 2.4e10 kg*m/s over 1000m^2 over an impact time of again, one second. So a pressure of some 2.4e7 N/m^2. Or 244 tons of force per m^2. With a hull some 30-40 cm thick, and that is merely an average.
But, these numbers are shakey at best, useless at somewhat worse than best and go downhill from there. SO,
A) the numbers I crunched are likely wrong,
B) the nacelle blew up from the inside, i.e. the warp coil blew up; the hull was apparently fine (except of course the clear part where the plasma burst through).
False comparison. You know that you compare pressure in unils of Pascals for material comparison, stop being deceptive.C) If my numbers are close, then the nacelle pylon, despite being very thin, didn't even twist under the stress of 2,400,000 tons of force, for an entire second.
Your calcs, which are overly high, have the part of the hull that needs to be extremely strong failing at 24MPa
And highgrade steel fails at 260MPa
The lack of debris doesn't mean shit, the material can fail without releasing debris. Try shooting cans with a BB gun sometime. The I would love to hear how the narcell coils being driven into each other and building up the pressure until the plasma set off the fuel does not constitute material failure. Because it sure as fuck does in the real world.D) What ever the total force, it was the sudden impact that did the damage, not hull failure, evidenced by lack of hull debris, and lack of apparent damage when later viewed, after attitude failure, and just before core breach.
The older starship also had much more material on its narcells. This protects the coils and adds to the narcell itself. It would prevent failure.E) The Bozeman, with more stable design, was not destroyed, however it also suffered no hull damage in the shot. This is more icing on the cake, as a much older starship's hull stood up just fine. It is silly to propse a more advanced starship would have a weaker hull.
And what flaw would that be? That they used shity materials?In Conclusion, it was a design flaw that destroyed the Enterprise D;
No hull failure was observed, except for crushing the coils and causing a pressure buildup that destroyed the ship.no hull failure was observed, and the supporting pylon apparently can support the entire weight of the battle section, plus some.
That's because you are nowhere near as smart as you like to pretend you are.I fail to see how this is some kind of bitchslap.